During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

More proof that conservatives do not believe in evolution.

Rights are forever frozen in the time they were first written about? The idea of equality is forever stuck in 1868? That makes sense? Scalia should have joined the Vatican not the Supreme Court.

During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

More proof that conservatives do not believe in evolution.

Rights are forever frozen in the time they were first written about? The idea of equality is forever stuck in 1868? That makes sense? Scalia should have joined the Vatican not the Supreme Court.

So you want to "unfreeze" the Constitution and melt it ?

More proof liberals want to ignore and repeal the Constitution as outdated and inconvenient.

Has the statute of limitations run out on the Bill of Rights?

Like liberal Professor Seidman of Georgetown, who wants us to start "extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage"...

Hey , Reynolds v. United States (1878) was a Supreme Court decision that upheld a challenge to the Constitutionality of certain federal anti-polygamy laws.

Is that idea of legislating against people who claim to love each other, forever stuck in 1878? Do laws against polygamy make sense? What harm is it to you?

During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

Do you know if Clarence Thomas was actually awake during the argument ?

During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

Do you know if Clarence Thomas was actually awake during the argument ?

Br'er Crankup are you please as a conservative that Scailia has compared being gay to ............

Murder

Polygamy

Cruelty to animals

Prostitution

Heroin use

Incest

Adultery

Obscenity

Child porn

Scalia did not compare being gay with that list... Scalia specifically said he "had nothing against homosexuals".

Scalia was analyzing whether certain laws were unconstitutional...obviously his intellect is far above the low information leftists who believe if they dont approve of a law, it must be thrown out a by a judge...

Br'er Crankup ... Scalia does think homosexuality is immoral and he certainly did compare being gay to that list ...... as for people who you call leftists being low information ..... I love being underestimated by the likes of you because you are on the wrong side of history on almost every issue and watching you eat crow is so much sweeter!

During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

More proof that conservatives do not believe in evolution.

Rights are forever frozen in the time they were first written about? The idea of equality is forever stuck in 1868? That makes sense? Scalia should have joined the Vatican not the Supreme Court.

Sure. Overturning the idea of "separate but equal" was a huge mistake too. We should have left social issues like segregation to the states. Same with inter-racial marriage, hugely divisive social issue that the court needlessly intefered with. And gay marriage? Sure, there are no rights involved, that equal protection of the law thingy is not really applicable: states can embrace as much bigotry as they like. And Conservatives wonder why they are losing support. Maybe being on the wrong side of history is the answer... Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it.

Apparently it's not just cons who are on wrong side of history...
Gay Marriage Rights: The 10 Democratic Senators Who Still Say No

Heard on the news last night that the court may not actually go through with taking the case. Any confirmation on this?

I think it worth pointing out that the actual case is over the prop 8 motion in CA, which passed on a state vote. Personally, I don't think the supreme court would, if they do take the case, vote to overturn it.

You can complain about it all you want, but anyone who knows the tax laws knows why this is a hard sell on a federal level. You get more money back if you file a joint return, which you can't do unless you are married. That's a lot of cash lost, and it's a lousy reason, but it makes up a lot of people's minds.

Hell if I know. Gay marriage is one of those issues I just kind of go, "Eh. I don't really care."

I mean I guess if you pushed me, I'd say, "Okay, let the gays marry, too. Hey wait a minute - isn't marriage more of a religious institution? Why the hell is government involved in it in the first place?"

And then I'd realize that it's not really about something called "marriage." Rather, it's about the benefit$ that go along with it. And then I'd probably go off on a tangent about what a weak and greedy country we have become - where people have zero shame about seeking to line their pockets with their neighbors' dollars, by any means necessary

Loving v. Virginia: It violates federal due process to prohibit blacks and whites marrying each other.

Skin color is genetic. Sexual orientation is epi-genetic.

This isn't a trick question. It isn't even an analogy. Prohibitions on gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. That it has not been so held indicates just how strong the social conservative agenda is in influencing legal rulings. And yet we have some crying here about "progressives"....

Posted by BDC

The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan.

She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was ‘‘to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’’ The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.

So, by the same standard, bans on polygamy, marring children, marrying pets, all unconsitutional?

During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

More proof that conservatives do not believe in evolution.

Rights are forever frozen in the time they were first written about? The idea of equality is forever stuck in 1868? That makes sense? Scalia should have joined the Vatican not the Supreme Court.

So you want to "unfreeze" the Constitution and melt it ?

More proof liberals want to ignore and repeal the Constitution as outdated and inconvenient.

Has the statute of limitations run out on the Bill of Rights?

Like liberal Professor Seidman of Georgetown, who wants us to start "extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage"...

Hey , Reynolds v. United States (1878) was a Supreme Court decision that upheld a challenge to the Constitutionality of certain federal anti-polygamy laws.

Is that idea of legislating against people who claim to love each other, forever stuck in 1878? Do laws against polygamy make sense? What harm is it to you?

So, by the same standard, bans on polygamy, marring children, marrying pets, all unconsitutional?

Polygamy isn't genetic or epigenetic.

Marrying children is pedophilia, and whether or not it is genetic is irrelevant because there is a reason for prohibiting it: All the obvious harm.

There is no genetic or epigenetic bases for beastiality that I'm aware of. What a silly thing to say.

Sorry your slippery slope arguments are no more than hate-filled propoganda designed to make people feel comfortable in bigotry.

Really?

Polygamic is as genetic/epigenetic as homosexuality, unless you have some scientific research to show differently. I know you don't. It doesn't exist.

Your arguments show the weakness of your claims. When you can marry varies in age all over the country. So, in one county it is prohibited, in the next county over it is fine? Was it OK when in the middle ages, marriage happened around 12 years old?

Your argument is weak, as it depends on whatever the norm is at the time, and is not based on science, no matter how much you try to throw in some "big words" to convince the stupid. So, homosexuality has been normalized, not through science, but through indoctrination. That's how the argument is being won. But, as an actual argument, there is not a shred of difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage, if your standard is simply that they love each other.

And then I'd realize that it's not really about something called "marriage." Rather, it's about the benefit$ that go along with it. And then I'd probably go off on a tangent about what a weak and greedy country we have become - where people have zero shame about seeking to line their pockets with their neighbors' dollars, by any means necessary

And then I'd realize that it's not really about something called "marriage." Rather, it's about the benefit$ that go along with it. And then I'd probably go off on a tangent about what a weak and greedy country we have become - where people have zero shame about seeking to line their pockets with their neighbors' dollars, by any means necessary

And then I'd realize that it's not really about something called "marriage." Rather, it's about the benefit$ that go along with it. And then I'd probably go off on a tangent about what a weak and greedy country we have become - where people have zero shame about seeking to line their pockets with their neighbors' dollars, by any means necessary

That's capitalism for ya.

Would you prefer a different system?

No use. It would still be developed by fallible, weak, greedy humans elected by other weak, greedy humans.

It's like choosing where to live. No place on earth has perfect weather 365/24.

And then I'd realize that it's not really about something called "marriage." Rather, it's about the benefit$ that go along with it. And then I'd probably go off on a tangent about what a weak and greedy country we have become - where people have zero shame about seeking to line their pockets with their neighbors' dollars, by any means necessary

That's capitalism for ya.

Would you prefer a different system?

No use. It would still be developed by fallible, weak, greedy humans elected by other weak, greedy humans.

It's like choosing where to live. No place on earth has perfect weather 365/24.

Nice dodge. and who said it had to be a perfect system? Does every country have the capitalistic society that the US has? No. Therefore you should be able to answer the question unless all you really wanted to do is complain.

Loving v. Virginia: It violates federal due process to prohibit blacks and whites marrying each other.

Skin color is genetic. Sexual orientation is epi-genetic.

This isn't a trick question. It isn't even an analogy. Prohibitions on gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. That it has not been so held indicates just how strong the social conservative agenda is in influencing legal rulings. And yet we have some crying here about "progressives"....

Posted by BDC

The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan.

She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was ‘‘to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’’ The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court did not decide Loving v. Virginia, until 1967; by that time only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws in place.

During the 1940s and 1950s the Supreme Court repeatedly turned down opportunities to make a broad constitutional ruling on anti-miscegenation laws. Only when the tide of public opinion had already turned did the Court feel the time was right to make its decision, a correct decision.

Point being, the Supreme Court has almost always rightly considered its limited role as a co-equal, branch of government, not a dictatorial branch.

Not a political branch using the due process and equal protection clauses to impose its own views on divisive social issues.

Imposing a Roe v Wade type dictatorial decision on all 50 states would be improper, and also may well backfire on the cause of gay marriage.

Loving v. Virginia: It violates federal due process to prohibit blacks and whites marrying each other.

Skin color is genetic. Sexual orientation is epi-genetic.

This isn't a trick question. It isn't even an analogy. Prohibitions on gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. That it has not been so held indicates just how strong the social conservative agenda is in influencing legal rulings. And yet we have some crying here about "progressives"....

Posted by BDC

The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan.

She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was ‘‘to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’’ The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court did not decide Loving v. Virginia, until 1967; by that time only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws in place.

During the 1940s and 1950s the Supreme Court repeatedly turned down opportunities to make a broad constitutional ruling on anti-miscegenation laws. Only when the tide of public opinion had already turned did the Court feel the time was right to make its decision, a correct decision.

Point being, the Supreme Court has almost always rightly considered its limited role as a co-equal, branch of government, not a dictatorial branch.

Not a political branch using the due process and equal protection clauses to impose its own views on divisive social issues.

Imposing a Roe v Wade type dictatorial decision on all 50 states would be improper, and also may well backfire on the cause of gay marriage.

So minorities can be oppressed (for no rational reason) by the majority until it changes its mind... I truly wish you experience what it is like to be a minority so we can pat you on the head and preach patience while you live with being a second class citizen. Just wait for the bigots to come around... any day now... Such a view is morally corrupt. The "tyranny of the majority" was a primary concern of the Founders. You embrace it. You are on the wrong side of progress and of the history of our American ideals.

Loving v. Virginia: It violates federal due process to prohibit blacks and whites marrying each other.

Skin color is genetic. Sexual orientation is epi-genetic.

This isn't a trick question. It isn't even an analogy. Prohibitions on gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. That it has not been so held indicates just how strong the social conservative agenda is in influencing legal rulings. And yet we have some crying here about "progressives"....

Posted by BDC

The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan.

She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was ‘‘to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’’ The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court did not decide Loving v. Virginia, until 1967; by that time only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws in place.

During the 1940s and 1950s the Supreme Court repeatedly turned down opportunities to make a broad constitutional ruling on anti-miscegenation laws. Only when the tide of public opinion had already turned did the Court feel the time was right to make its decision, a correct decision.

Point being, the Supreme Court has almost always rightly considered its limited role as a co-equal, branch of government, not a dictatorial branch.

Not a political branch using the due process and equal protection clauses to impose its own views on divisive social issues.

Imposing a Roe v Wade type dictatorial decision on all 50 states would be improper, and also may well backfire on the cause of gay marriage.

So minorities can be oppressed (for no rational reason) by the majority until it changes its mind... I truly wish you experience what it is like to be a minority so we can pat you on the head and preach patience while you live with being a second class citizen. Just wait for the bigots to come around... any day now... Such a view is morally corrupt. The "tyranny of the majority" was a primary concern of the Founders. You embrace it. You are on the wrong side of progress and of the history of our American ideals.

No one is being oppressed here. You have the same right to marry that I have. What this is about is feelings. I'm saddend that we can't have a conversation about this (Aren't progressives always lookign for us to have 'conversations' on these things?) without you calling everyone who disagrees with you bigots. I don't care what you do. I don't approve of it either, and I don't see how confering this special status helps our society. I think these are legitimate points, no matter how loudly you condem them with personal attacks. See, it is about feelings.

That being said, arguing against gay marriage is a lost cause. It has become a lost cause, as there are too many liberal votes involved, to many people that think it is about not hurting feelings as opposed to doing what is good for our society.